Employer parking lots - but not the legislative foreshadowing.

[Willy]

I noticed that "private property" was not defined in the 922 definitions. Could we argue that in TX, our vehicles are considered private property?(or our Castle) I'm sure that's not how they intended the meaning, but the Castle Doctrine gives us the right to defend our vehicles as private property.

 

[txinvestigator]

I noticed that "private property" was not defined in the 922 definitions. Could we argue that in TX, our vehicles are considered private property?(or our Castle) I'm sure that's not how they intended the meaning, but the Castle Doctrine gives us the right to defend our vehicles as private property.

The Castle Doctrine did not exactly do that, and the feds are not obligated to Texas definitions

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Section 46.15(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

Where do we find the provisions for the Motorist Protection Act?

 

[Bithabus]

Where do we find the provisions for the Motorist Protection Act?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 693, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Exactly! The question was rhetorical, but you made my point. When you are carry a handgun you are license to carry AND your license, you are carrying under GC411,sub-chapter h, therefore the entire text of Section 46.02 (which includes MOTORIST PROTECTION ACT) does not apply to you.

 

[txinvestigator]

Exactly! The question was rhetorical, but you made my point. When you are carry a handgun you are license to carry AND your license, you are carrying under GC411,sub-chapter h, therefore the entire text of Section 46.02 (which includes MOTORIST PROTECTION ACT) does not apply to you.

No, that is not how it works. 46.02 tells us that generally you cannot carry a handgun on or about your person. It also tells us when we can. If I meet the 4 requirements of car carry, I can carry in a car. No CHL or other permission needed. Therefore, when I carry in my car I an carrying because it is not otherwise unawful.

46.15 (b) tells you when behavior that would otherwise be unlawful under 46.02 is not unlawful. Since it is not unlawful to carry in a motor vehicle I own, I am not carrying under the authority of a CHL.

The first section of 46.02 reads "a person committs an offense if he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife or club". 46.15(b) deletes this if you meet 46.15(b).

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

No, that is not how it works. 46.02 tells us that generally you cannot carry a handgun on or about your person. It also tells us when we can. If I meet the 4 requirements of car carry, I can carry in a car. No CHL or other permission needed. Therefore, when I carry in my car I an carrying because it is not otherwise unawful.

46.15 (b) tells you when behavior that would otherwise be unlawful under 46.02 is not unlawful. Since it is not unlawful to carry in a motor vehicle I own, I am not carrying under the authority of a CHL.

The first section of 46.02 reads "a person committs an offense if he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife or club". 46.15(b) deletes this if you meet 46.15(b).

I understand that. The comment was made that if you and your weapon are in your car AND you are a CHL holder, you're carrying under the auspices of MPA. This is not true.

 

[txinvestigator]

I understand that. The comment was made that if you and your weapon are in your car AND you are a CHL holder, you're carrying under the auspices of MPA. This is not true.

It IS true. I don't lose a stated right by being a license holder.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

It IS true. I don't lose a stated right by being a license holder.

No one said you lost a right. Your ability to carry has nothing to do with the Motorist Protection Act 'restrictions' when you are a license holder. You can carry, but it has nothing to do with MPA. Section 46.02 does not apply. I believe you're on a tangent here. My insertion had to do with whether or not a 30.06 posting would apply to a CHL holder carrying a gun in his car. The argument came up that it would not due to the MPA. I say it would because MPA doesn't apply. I never said you couldn't carry or lost any rights.

 

[Bithabus]

No one said you lost a right. Your ability to carry has nothing to do with the Motorist Protection Act 'restrictions' when you are a license holder. You can carry, but it has nothing to do with MPA. Section 46.02 does not apply. I believe you're on a tangent here. My insertion had to do with whether or not a 30.06 posting would apply to a CHL holder carrying a gun in his car. The argument came up that it would not due to the MPA. I say it would because MPA doesn't apply. I never said you couldn't carry or lost any rights.

What you are describing would be a right lost. Two employees, one with CHL, one not. Both have a handgun in car. Parking lot has a 30.06 posted. Now one employee is breaking the law by parking his car, and the other employee, simply because he doesn't have a CHL, is lawfully carrying? That is absurd.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

What you are describing would be a right lost. Two employees, one with CHL, one not. Both have a handgun in car. Parking lot has a 30.06 posted. Now one employee is breaking the law by parking his car, and the other employee, simply because he doesn't have a CHL, is lawfully carrying? That is absurd.

Unfortunately, you give up certain rights when you get your CHL. The person without the CHL is not required to display or announce that he is carrying when stopped by law enforcement and asked for ID, whereas the CHL holder is. Section 46.02 doesn't give the unlicensed individual anything; it effectively states the conditions under which this unlicensed individual can carry by effecting restrictions or offenses. Section 46.02 clearly does not apply if the individual is carrying a handgun and license, as indicated in Section 46.15, so neither the offenses, nor the exceptions to the offenses, listed under Section 46.02 apply.

We're not talking about what is or isn't absurd. We're talking about which statutes would apply.

 

[Bithabus]

We are no longer required to show a CHL when stopped by LE. I am aware the rule in Government code still exists, but the last legislature removed all penalties effectively nullifying the rule.

I think the discussion about whether 30.06 can apply to a CHL holder carrying in a motor vehicle comes down to the meaning of the phrase "under the authority".

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,

It's true that 46.02 doesn't apply to CHL holders while carrying, but as you point out 46.02 lists restrictions and does not give positive rights to anyone. 46.02 says that car carry is excepted from unlawful carry, as is private property. When we carry on our own property, or in our car, we are not exercising any special privileges, nor are we carrying on any authority. When there is no law prohibiting a certain conduct then we do not require any special authority to exercise that conduct. For example, you don't need authority to have a steak for dinner, or call your friend on the phone.

So what does it mean to "carry a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, chapter 411, Government Code"? Does a CHL holder carry under this "authority" when in his private home? It only make sense that this means a CHL holder may carry in places that a normal citizen cannot. A CHL holder can carry almost anywhere, with obvious exceptions, and has carry privileges far in excess of the ordinary citizen. This, I believe, is the meaning of the "authority" quoted above: the legal ability to carry somewhere a normal citizen cannot. Since nearly anyone can carry in their motor vehicle without a CHL, the CHL holder does need special authority to carry there, and so is not "carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code", and so cannot be restricted by 30.06


I know some of this is my personal interpretation, and opinion, and is open to disagreement.

 

[Renegade]

Unfortunately, you give up certain rights when you get your CHL.

So your belief is if you are carrying a handgun & CHL, you are always carrying under CHL authority?

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

So your belief is if you are carrying a handgun & CHL, you are always carrying under CHL authority?

No.

You are not carrying under the auspices of CHL when you are on your own property or property under your control. It can also be argued that you are not carrying under CHL when you are in your vehicle, a vehicle under your control, directly in route, etc. (as specified in Section 46.02) when you are carrying your handgun, but NOT your CHL. The way the statute is written, Section 46.02 does not apply if you are carrying both.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

We are no longer required to show a CHL when stopped by LE. I am aware the rule in Government code still exists, but the last legislature removed all penalties effectively nullifying the rule.

You are still required to display. The fact that our legislature repealed the 90 day suspension penalty does not negate your requirement to display.

Let me ask you this: You're sitting in your car in a business parking log and an officer approaches your vehicle. He asks for your ID. You're carrying, but you believe you're not required to display, so I already know your answer to my first question. He notices the butt of your handgun protruding from under a newspaper on the passenger seat.

What do you think the likely outcome will be, and if you're charged with an offense, under what TPC would that fall?

 

[Renegade]

No.

You are not carrying under the auspices of CHL when you are on your own property or property under your control.

What if I am a guest on someone else's (commercial) property?

 

[Renegade]

You are still required to display. The fact that our legislature repealed the 90 day suspension penalty does not negate your requirement to display.

Let me ask you this: You're sitting in your car in a business parking log and an officer approaches your vehicle. He asks for your ID. You're carrying, but you believe you're not required to display, so I already know your answer to my first question. He notices the butt of your handgun protruding from under a newspaper on the passenger seat.

What do you think the likely outcome will be, and if you're charged with an offense, under what TPC would that fall?

Nothing happens 99% of the time. The 1% of the time the LEO makes an arrest charges are dropped. Stories of this 1% are in the newspapers from time to time.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Nothing happens 99% of the time. The 1% of the time the LEO makes an arrest charges are dropped. Stories of this 1% are in the newspapers from time to time.

That's fine, but that doesn't negate the requirement to display. It still exists. Until the legislature changes the language, your requirement to display will continue, regardless of the existence of a penalty.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

What if I am a guest on someone else's (commercial) property?

By "what if," I assume you mean would you be carrying under the authority of your CHL.

It depends. The general answer is "yes," and you would be required to conceal. There are exceptions. For example: If by "guest," you mean you are actually holding a position of authority and considered to be in control of the property, you would not be carrying under your CHL and would not be required to conceal.

 

[Renegade]

By "what if," I assume you mean would you be carrying under the authority of your CHL.

It depends. The general answer is "yes," and you would be required to conceal. There are exceptions. For example: If by "guest," you mean you are actually holding a position of authority and considered to be in control of the property, you would not be carrying under your CHL and would not be required to conceal.

No I am at a place that sells goods & services and I am a customer.